Saints in trouble again

[tess]

The players' names were announced in the media.

This kind of thing sticks, and whether or not it is true tends to fall by the wayside.

What about this girl. You think she is now known as that ********, or is that just how she was made to feel.

Why should they have had their characters assassinated while she remained nicely anonymous?

Bellla, she was named by the St Kilda Football Club! They named her in a desperate attempt to find dirt on her, that much was obvious.

The players could afford the very best legal team when the allegations first came to light, and they still can. Only now instead of relying on the Police prosecutor this lady has her own legal team. Now she is playing on an equal playing field.

Lets see when no means no! Even if you just screwed a blokes mate... no means no!

 

[- PC -]

The worst that can happen is they'll have to pay compo for something that probably never happened.

Thats why Port players paid out ... because nothing happened?

 

[Joffaboy]

Democracy and access to courts makes Australia a great nation.

This protects all of our rights. Everone should be happy that an (almost) anonymous woman has access to take on two high profile and cashed "football stars" in our system when she believes she has been wronged.
I have faith in our legal system for both parties, and I am happy in the knowledge that the legal system will give justice when the balance of evidence is weighed up.

 

[- PC -]

This protects all of our rights. Everone should be happy that an (almost) anonymous woman has access to take on two high profile and cashed "football stars" in our system when she believes she has been wronged.
I have faith in our legal system for both parties, and I am happy in the knowledge that the legal system will give justice when the balance of evidence is weighed up.

Faith is a good thing to have...but I fear we are increasingly heading towards the American style or court cases and reporting of court cases eg Kobe Bryant. The issue that tends to get hidden is the one of consent. We understand there are groupies, we understand players get easier access to sexual favours... does this then make those players forget that consent must, in the eyes of the law, be given for each sexual act that takes place...

Unfortunately people see sports stars and clubs as money troughs so education of the players should be paramount.

 

[LongBomb]

Yep.

Evil lying little cow is just after cash.

I'm assuming you were not present when the incident occurred, so how do you know she is lying?

So if she is telling the truth, and was sexually assaulted - isn't she entitled by law to pursue compensation?
Or do we just throw her rights out the window because footy players are involved?

 

[afc9798]

What is she sueing for? They weren't charged so what hope does she have? None. She's wasting her time.

I think you'll find that Messrs Burgoyne, Heuskes and O'Loughlin would no doubt disagree for approximately 200,000 reasons.

 

[DynamoUltra]

A few things;
1) Having being cleared by the police, doesn't this hold in good stead for Milne and Montagna?
2) Milne and Montagna should countersue for defamation.
3) Lawyers would be in it to make money, not because they think they can win.
4) In reference to OJ, America is a different legal system to ours, so don't be comparing the two.
5) As someone else has already said, they're not in trouble again.
6) This "dopey hairy back sheila" should get on with her life, the psychological troubles caused by bringing this up again mustn't be very much, or else she would've launched this case immediately after the investigation.

It's an inditement on our legal system if people can be sued for a crime which, under the same laws, were found not guilty of. Makes no sense.

 

[Draft Pick]

A few things;
1) Having being cleared by the police, doesn't this hold in good stead for Milne and Montagna?
2) Milne and Montagna should countersue for defamation.
3) Lawyers would be in it to make money, not because they think they can win.
4) In reference to OJ, America is a different legal system to ours, so don't be comparing the two.
5) As someone else has already said, they're not in trouble again.
6) This "dopey hairy back sheila" should get on with her life, the psychological troubles caused by bringing this up again mustn't be very much, or else she would've launched this case immediately after the investigation.

It's an inditement on our legal system if people can be sued for a crime which, under the same laws, were found not guilty of. Makes no sense.

It actually makes perfect sense as the Criminal system is based on finding people guity beyond reasonable doubt. That means if there is any doubt whatsoever then the defendant is found not guilty.
Therefore in this instance the police did not charge the players not because they thought they were innocent but because they thought that there was a fair chance that there was not enough evidence for a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they had assaulted the woman.

Also we have a very similar legal system to the U.S based on common law principles. In the U.S as here you have to be found guity beyond reasonable doubt, and their civil system is also based on the balance of probabilities. So the O.J example id certainly a good one.

 

[eddiesmith]

A few things;
1) Having being cleared by the police, doesn't this hold in good stead for Milne and Montagna?
2) Milne and Montagna should countersue for defamation.
3) Lawyers would be in it to make money, not because they think they can win.
4) In reference to OJ, America is a different legal system to ours, so don't be comparing the two.
5) As someone else has already said, they're not in trouble again.
6) This "dopey hairy back sheila" should get on with her life, the psychological troubles caused by bringing this up again mustn't be very much, or else she would've launched this case immediately after the investigation.

It's an inditement on our legal system if people can be sued for a crime which, under the same laws, were found not guilty of. Makes no sense.

Hookesy family is doing the same thing, when the criminal side of things proves to be another ******** up which it is 99% of the time, you can atleast gain something out of it civilly.

Unlike in Hookesy case, she wont send these bastards bankrupt, but oh well. No doubt the little slimy bastards will settle out of court and some stupid St Kilda sponsor will probably pay the money so the 2 bastards get off scot free again

Just goes to show, the Australian Legal System is a ********ing joke

 

[G_Money]

A few things;
1) Having being cleared by the police, doesn't this hold in good stead for Milne and Montagna?
2) Milne and Montagna should countersue for defamation.
3) Lawyers would be in it to make money, not because they think they can win.
4) In reference to OJ, America is a different legal system to ours, so don't be comparing the two.
5) As someone else has already said, they're not in trouble again.
6) This "dopey hairy back sheila" should get on with her life, the psychological troubles caused by bringing this up again mustn't be very much, or else she would've launched this case immediately after the investigation.

It's an inditement on our legal system if people can be sued for a crime which, under the same laws, were found not guilty of. Makes no sense.

1) Milne and Montagna were not 'cleared' by the police, the police found that there was insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution. Big difference. Rape is notoriously difficult to prove, as it tends to come down to her word against his, there may have been alcohol involved (which clouds credibility) etc.

2) By whom have they been defamed? The media? Were there any quotes from the girl in the story? Did she say "Stephen Milne is a rapist?".

3) Of course lawyers are in it for money, and MBC are ambulance-chasers, but they also have a sizable public interest business. I am sure that if you spoke to the lawyer representing her, you would find that she is motivated by a desire to help victims of sexual assault, not just by money. There are quite a few people at MBC and Slater and Gordon (Melbourne's other big left-leaning law firm) that could be making a lot more money in other areas of the law. For crying out loud, the woman representing her has a PhD, and chooses to work with alleged rape victims! With a mind that can get a PhD, she could probably be coining it in if she worked in corporate and commercial law.

4) Dealt with by Draft Pick.

5) What does this mean?

6) "dopey hairy back sheila" - a particularly vile choice of words on your part. Do you know her? Have you ever spoken to her? No, you are basing your opinion on ignorant prejudice.

As for "getting on with her life", maybe she sees this as part of getting on with her life. Maybe she doesn't want to "move on" until she has tested every possible avenue to have her version of events heard in an open court room. It takes a lot of courage to get up in court and lay out your sex life, knowing full well that the other side will do whatever they can to paint you as a ********. She is showing more character by pursuing this action than she would be by not doing so.

Finally you said:

"It's an inditement on our legal system if people can be sued for a crime which, under the same laws, were found not guilty of. Makes no sense."

Problems:
a) They were never found "not guilty". There was insufficient evidence for charges to be laid.

b) The civil case will be brought under different laws to a rape case (which was never brought in the first place).

I don't know what happened that night. If Milne and/or Montagna are rapists, they don't deserve anybody's support. Simple as that. If a Geelong player were accused of rape, and found guilty in a criminal court, I would expect him to be delisted immediately. Likewise, if the action were brought in a civil court, and a judge ordered him to pay damages for a sexual assault, I would expect him to be delisted immediately. There are some things that you just don't tolerate in this world. Rape is one of them.

GM

 

[saintsrule]

Hookesy family is doing the same thing, when the criminal side of things proves to be another ******** up which it is 99% of the time, you can atleast gain something out of it civilly.

Unlike in Hookesy case, she wont send these bastards bankrupt, but oh well. No doubt the little slimy bastards will settle out of court and some stupid St Kilda sponsor will probably pay the money so the 2 bastards get off scot free again

Just goes to show, the Australian Legal System is a ********ing joke

Although the Australian legal system is heading too much in the direction of the American 'sue everyone for any little thing' system, it is far from a joke. Perhaps you would prefer the Indonesian system?

 

[The Fireman]

Hookesy family is doing the same thing, when the criminal side of things proves to be another ******** up which it is 99% of the time, you can atleast gain something out of it civilly.

Unlike in Hookesy case, she wont send these bastards bankrupt, but oh well. No doubt the little slimy bastards will settle out of court and some stupid St Kilda sponsor will probably pay the money so the 2 bastards get off scot free again

Just goes to show, the Australian Legal System is a ********ing joke

your a slimy little bastard but you walk free...or do you.?

 

[eddiesmith]

Although the Australian legal system is heading too much in the direction of the American 'sue everyone for any little thing' system, it is far from a joke. Perhaps you would prefer the Indonesian system?

Why not? Might help destroy the drug industry that runs riot in Australia with nothing being done about it

 

[saintsrule]

I take it you know very little about Indonesia or its legal system.

 

[G_Money]

I take it you know very little about Indonesia or its legal system.

Please, enlighten us professor. What have you learned about the Indonesian legal system from that well regarded journal of comparitive jurisprudence, The Herald-Sun?

GM

 

[saintsrule]

a) I lived and worked in Indonesia for five years.
b) I do not read that scurrilous rag except for the sports pages when it is supplied free at my workplace.
c) Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

 

[G_Money]

a) I lived and worked in Indonesia for five years.
b) I do not read that scurrilous rag except for the sports pages when it is supplied free at my workplace.
c) Don't make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Sorry, my bad, that was poor form. Point taken (and the point about not making assumptions about people you know nothing about is one that some people on this thread would do well to take).

GM

 

[DynamoUltra]

Is it just me or is it inconceivably stupid for someone to be able to sue on the basis of "the balance of probability" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt". Seriously, I could sue for a heap of things that never happened, which I could claim did and then say, well, on the balance of probability, it did. If someone can't be convicted of a crime then why should someone be allowed to sue. Disgrace.

 

[eddiesmith]

Is it just me or is it inconceivably stupid for someone to be able to sue on the basis of "the balance of probability" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt". Seriously, I could sue for a heap of things that never happened, which I could claim did and then say, well, on the balance of probability, it did. If someone can't be convicted of a crime then why should someone be allowed to sue. Disgrace.

Because if we have beyond reasonable doubt, nothing would ever get through the courts

Its not as simple as making something up, its just the evidence requirement is a little less

Take the Hookes case for example, because of slight doubt the bloke got off, but Civilly he will get sued into bankruptcy. There is no question he is guilty, so really which system is better?

 

[campbell]

Is it just me or is it inconceivably stupid for someone to be able to sue on the basis of "the balance of probability" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt". Seriously, I could sue for a heap of things that never happened, which I could claim did and then say, well, on the balance of probability, it did. If someone can't be convicted of a crime then why should someone be allowed to sue. Disgrace.

One never knows what evidence they have gathered.Saint Kilda may have sho themselves in the foot........I would settle bigtime if I was them.......

 

[Darealrath]

Does this mean we get to hear quarterbrain tell us again that Milne has silenced his critics when he kicks a goal in the wiz cup ?

 

[RoK]

Yep, it certainly seems that it is all about the money, why else would she want to drag all this up again and the dirty laundry that comes with it?
Revenge for what? Show me the money.

I can not believe this you know nothing about the case yet you say she just wants the money.If she was r*ped and i don't know if she was or not i hope she takes them to the cleaner's.

this poor girl could have been r*ped and i don't care who the player are they should pay and not just with money.It really shows what type of person you are when a saint's player dose something wrong it ok or a lie because he play's for the saints.

That is just plain sick.

 

[sainter35]

You dont know much about the law do you? Don't confuse civil damages claims with criminal charges, they are not the same. Want a case in point? Look at OJ, he got off for killing his wife but lost the civil suit

She will probably either a) win the civil suit and be paid compensation or b) be paid off before it comes to court by the saints. She isnt wasting her time, the lawyers are probably pro bono and they wouldnt take the case unless they believed they had a strong chance of victory.

Did you say pro-boner?

yep im tippin that.

 

[garth p]

The saints are very very media savvy, they new at the time to muddy the waters by namig this girl.

Enough said.

She didn't name these guys except to police, what the club did was wrong.

She has not spoken in public about this incident, they have.Thats wrong.

Well, who the f... has gone to the newspapers then clown. Has to be her or her friends as her solicitors are supposed to be close lipped about the whole affair.

 

[spanky ham]

Well, who the f... has gone to the newspapers then clown. Has to be her or her friends as her solicitors are supposed to be close lipped about the whole affair.

Not too bright are you Garth